Christianity is a delusion. This is beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt. Beyond a doubt Christianity is a delusion. The evidence against it is overwhelming. There is staggering psychological and anthropological evidence that we simply adopt what we were taught to believe as credulous kids who then seek to confirm that which we were led to believe. Skepticism is not an inherited trait. We must learn to be skeptical. And there is every reason to be skeptical. There is textual evidence, scientific evidence, and archaeological evidence against Christianity. There are also philosophical conundrums that cannot be solved if Christianity is the case, like reconciling the trinity within itself, the incarnation of a person who is 100% God and 100% man, and personal identity after death. Then there are problems that cannot be solved for a perfectly good God with the amount of intense suffering in our world, including massive ubiquitous animal suffering and a final punishment in hell. I am so sure of this I am willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. Beyond a doubt Christianity is a delusion.

Wotan is not amused at your lack of faith. Give one of your eyes and hang on the Oak if you desire wisdom, then you may question the Gods, but be quick, lest Ragnarok find you unready and unworthy. Only a twisted and purposely blinded mind could deny the existence of the World Tree, The Gods, The Giants, and all that the world presents to our eyes. Repent of your blindness and see (at least out of the one eye you will have left).

There is nothing delusional about Christianity. But people do engage in hillbilly theology which drives skeptics (like you, John) crazy!

The Problem of Evil is an unanswerable problem only if one holds that God wants us happy little hamsters in a habitat, rather than mature participants refined by fire and ultimately redeemed.

Hell? Going there is insane! But that's what sin is! Self-induced insanity! You get what you want in the end. And visions of mean 'ol Uncle Ned swatting flames is simplistic and misleading (Unfortunately, it's far worse. It's internal pain due to the separation from the only Source of love and life. I'd rather have the former).

BTW, the only way I would use Pascal's Wager* is via the knowledge we all have of the existential Positive and Negative aspects of life. There is absolutely nothing positive about atheism. There is no hope, no "progress", no future. You are dead meat and it could happen in five minutes. The only "hope" one has is to successfully distract one's self from one's fast-approaching doom. No thanks.

*Paul will not allow Pascal's Wager in it's typical form. He told the Corinthians that if Christ is not risen, there is no hope. He does not say, "but go ahead and believe it anyway because it provides a (delusional) way of life". On the contrary, no resurrection, no hope.

What have I learned from several years of your blogging? you're an ignorant pathetic half truth telling joke. This is beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt. The evidence is overwhelming.

Kevin, you are CLEARLY delusional if you would prefer internal pain rather than a hell in which "mean 'ol Uncle Ned swatting flames."

Just think of that kind of pain and it becomes obvious to clear headed thinkers you do not think well because of your theology. And that is a mark of a deluded person.

And you are equally delusional to think it's any kind of good argument at all to say that atheism leads to no hope, since if this is the case then it's the case, end of story. All you have said by saying this is that you prefer Christianity to be true. Of course you do! That again is a mark of a deluded person.

Deluded people also attack the character of the one telling them that they are deluded as TD did, which again, is not an argument against anything I have said at all.

Kevin, you are CLEARLY delusional if you would prefer internal pain rather than a hell in which "mean 'ol Uncle Ned swatting flames."

Just think of that kind of pain and it becomes obvious to clear headed thinkers you do not think well because of your theology. And that is a mark of a deluded person.

KH> I said I would prefer "the former" (i.e. external pain) to internal pain. I think, especially in a biblically-described afterlife, that internal torment would be worse than external torture. Biblical descriptions of hell are varied to the extent it leaves lots of room for speculation on the nature of hell. Yet, the bottom line is separation from God and others.

And you are equally delusional to think it's any kind of good argument at all to say that atheism leads to no hope, since if this is the case then it's the case, end of story. All you have said by saying this is that you prefer Christianity to be true. Of course you do! That again is a mark of a deluded person.

KH> I'm not making an argument. In fact, PW is not really an argument. I just mean that there are limited ways to employ it. It is, however, a call for prudent and rational thinking (Pascal would say in keeping with the evidence. I wish he hadn't died before completing Penses.)

"Hell? Going there is insane! But that's what sin is! Self-induced insanity!"

But what "good" God would condemn me to a "sin nature" and the penalty of Hell for something I had nothing to do with. I didn't force the apple on Adam and Eve and I didn't ask my folks to have me.

No thanks, you can keep your delusion. I prefer the hope discovery offers. Your theology is simply an excuse for pre-meditated self-hatred.

Additionally, Atheism is not the only philosophical option to Christianity. One can embrace atheistic religions like Buddhism or choose to educate themselves with the enlightenment thinkers and claim secular humanism. One may also consider themselves a Christian Agnostic whereby they pick the more compassionate aspects of Christian teaching (e.g. love your neighbor, care for widows and orphans) and leave aside the superstitions. Your black/white thinking between your version of Christianity as hopeful and all other options as nihilism is ignorant and evidence to the level of self-centered arrogance Orthodox Christianity engenders.

So Kevin, what then becomes of the newer view of hell over the traditional one when it comes to the pain inflicted? According to you this newer softer view of hell is actually worse than the traditional one, and yet the newer view was concocted to soften the horrors of an eternal torment in flames!

The newer metaphorical view of hell doesn't accomplish anything to soften hell at all, on you own account!

And it does nothing to change my thinking. With such a view there is no perfectly good God. There can't be. No judge would ever punish anyone so completely and finally. Our punishments are humane; we lock people up in prison for limited amounts of time. And there are plenty of mitigating factors which would lessen any supposed sentence; like did the person know what he was doing was wrong? If we are truly insane with sin as you say, then we could use the insanity defense, you see, and we do not punish insane people. We seek to restore and help them.

Another mark of a deluded person is that he cannot see the nose on his face because he refuses to do so, or is psychologically impaired from doing so.

The newer metaphorical view of hell doesn't accomplish anything to soften hell at all, on you own account!

KH> I agree, and I agree with C.S. Lewis, i.e. there is no way to make hell more tolerable. It is just intolerable on a human level.

There's really not a new and old view of hell. The church fathers and thinkers throughout Christian history have been back and forth. But there seems to be a bottom line: separation.

Our punishments are humane; we lock people up in prison for limited amounts of time.

KH> I don't think I can improve on the notion of the eternal consequences of denying an eternal God. But Jesus did say that punishment would be worse on some than others. Are there degrees? Looks like it.

If we are truly insane with sin as you say, then we could use the insanity defense, you see, and we do not punish insane people. We seek to restore and help them.

KH> I was careful to say "self-imposed" insanity. And unfortunately, we do it all the time.

"including massive ubiquitous animal suffering". Pretty sensational perspective. Once I saw a video posted here of an animal being devoured by alligators (if memory serves me correctly..). Now the length of that video was probably less than 2 minutes but the span of the victim's life was much longer - go ahead and do the math for the ratio of pain/suffering to life lived.....and then compare that to the amount of pain/suffering people cooperate with during their lifetimes and the ever mounting abortion rate (not a good indication for humanity's ratio of pain/suffering to life!). We cooperate with deadly pursuits which infects those who are most dependent upon the instinctual--God's intention is for the lion to lie down with the lamb but some of us prefer to be infected and infect others with darkness.

But what "good" God would condemn me to a "sin nature" and the penalty of Hell for something I had nothing to do with. I didn't force the apple on Adam and Eve and I didn't ask my folks to have me.

KH> Christian theology teaches that Adam perfectly represented you and me. We all would do the same thing even in the fantastic beauty and circumstances of Eden.

Additionally, Atheism is not the only philosophical option to Christianity. One can embrace atheistic religions like Buddhism or choose to educate themselves with the enlightenment thinkers and claim secular humanism. One may also consider themselves a Christian Agnostic whereby they pick the more compassionate aspects of Christian teaching (e.g. love your neighbor, care for widows and orphans) and leave aside the superstitions. Your black/white thinking between your version of Christianity as hopeful and all other options as nihilism is ignorant and evidence to the level of self-centered arrogance Orthodox Christianity engenders.

KH> But I agree with Russell, Sartre, and Camus, et.al. If there is no God and no afterlife, none of that amounts to mouse flatulence.

Think all you want, learn all you want, accomplish all you want. It amounts to nothing.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM), there is no reason at all for an omnipotent caring God to have made animals at all, or if he did they should all be vegetarians.

As Dawkins wrote: "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.”

From River out of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 131-32.

You are blinded by your delusional faith to see the nose on your face. This is obvious and yet you choose to explain it away rather than deal with your delusion.

Kevin, think! Think! Don't rely on what Christian theology teaches you about Adam & Eve coming from what a barbaric and superstitious people wrote before the advent of science. Think about it.

KH> But John, be careful not to engage in Chronological Snobbery.

If we would all do exactly what Adam & Eve did then we were imperfectly made, or it was entrapment, hence the buck stops with the Creator.

KH> That's a good point. Yet, I don't think man was created perfect. I think he was created good, in fact "very good" in outstanding circumstances. But perfection seems to come via a process and there's no way around it! Otherwise, the extremely privileged Paris Hilton would be the great moral paradigm of America!

If God knows us as intimately as possible, as you admit, then he knows that that what we do flows from what we believe and that we cannot believe differently. So we do what we think is best at the moment, all of us, all of the time. In your life can you name me one wrong deed that you've done that you did not think it was the best deed to do under the circumstances at that time (even if on hindsight we all wish would wouldn't have done some things)? Of course you can't. The reason is because we only do that which we think is to our benefit at any given time. We may be short-sighted, but we're not evil.

And can you name me any wrong deed that you would have done had you known that by doing it you would go to hell without any possibility of forgiveness?

Kevin, but the authors of the Bible WERE barbaric and superstitious. Just re-read Judges 19-21, which records what I consider some of the most barbaric deeds you'll find in the Bible. Now you'll say that God never approves their deeds, okay. But I merely ask why I should ever believe anything these people wrote at all if they were like that? They have lost their credibility at that point. And I have a whole chapter on the superstitious nature of the Biblical people. They WERE superstitious, to the core, call it what you want.

You say that "perfection seems to come via a process and there's no way around it!" No way around what? Sin? Is God a consequentialist? If he knew that in order to have perfect creatures he must allow what we see on a daily basis here on the present earth when there is no reason to create anything in the first place, this is abhorrent to believing in a perfectly good God!

Why did God create at all? Think. Why? What possible REASON can a reasonable God have for creating this mess, knowing it must be a mess for us and the many who are condemned to hell, when he was already perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything at all? Think. Do not regurgitate any standard pat answers. I've heard them all before. Give me one reason why God did this.

If this was for his glory who needed to see it? Why would God even have anyone around to show his glory to? Besides, with such a world it rather shows his ignominious character.

John wrote, "there is no reason at all for an omnipotent caring God to have made animals at all, or if he did they should all be vegetarians."

We are, human and animal alike, infected in various degrees, with biting and devouring, whether it be on a more overt base animalistic level or a more insidious but sinister blog-debate level :-)

It seems your "solution" to suffering is to totally abort creative expression - not worthy of shaping the character to protect and sacrifice for. Without such life is abysmal - which of course, according to scripture, is an option that one can come to prefer.

P.S. As far as Dawkins is concerned his focus definitely magnifies and senstionalizes suffering. While acknowledging suffering, I need not be overwhelmed or intimidated by it to the point of ignoring the abundance of beauty in the created realm.

You said, "Think all you want, learn all you want, accomplish all you want. It amounts to nothing."

Of course it does if you are a self-centered but, if you enjoy watching others benefit from your efforts and can imagine a better world for them then, education and invention are good things.

I've often believed that the real draw for people who embrace Christian orthodoxy is that they can justifiably indulge their narcissism without being seen as adamently self-centered ("I'm humble, don't you see, I fall down in worship of the Holy God. Of course I do that to secure my everlasting life.")

All I see in your perspective (and appeal to the authority of noted atheists) is self-centered self-righteousness. There is little efficacy, reality or morality.

Kevin H said... "There is absolutely nothing positive about atheism. There is no hope, no "progress", no future. You are dead meat and it could happen in five minutes."

This is a prime sample of some of the thoughtless selfish deluded thoughts of the dopey indoctrinated faithful.

Kevin with such ease just simply totally forgets so many things while blurting all this crap out.Lots of facts dont even enter into the equation he uses.

His mind doesnt even pause for even a "second" to bother to ponder situations like the johnstowns and doomsday cults etc that all revolve around biblical teachings also.Not a single thought for very many arguments and separations and shunnings etc in families worldwide,brought on by selfrighteousness of faith.Not a care for many women being treated as objects to be owned dominated and controlled,due to indoctrination and fear of hell by god beliefs.No thought of a planet fast becoming over populated ,with idiot faithful folk often even encouraging and sometimes making it even a compulsery part of their faith by banning/shunning contraceptions.

Kevin cares little thought even, for the sick children being refused blood transfusions or medical treatment today!,due to the deluded biblical beliefs of their parents!.The young women being forced into polygamous situations simply through the russian roulette part of life of to whom they just happen to be born to,and the stupidity of mankinds faith beliefs that ends in some being married off and badly treated by old men of faith.

All the many faithful Kevins of this world really only ever really think much about considdering themselves.

As long as all the "Kevins" of this worlds salvations are all in place and "they" feel fine and dandy,who cares whats happening elsewhere to many others also because of humans mindless madness of having faith in God/s.

For these faithful their own joy and happiness is really top dog.As long as their own selfrighteousness tickles their fancy,who cares!! if the same faith beliefs all the Kevins follow happen to also cause many others much grief.

I suggest you are really the dead meat here Kevin,dead by your very faithful thoughtlessness.

You and so many other faithful willingly wager with the (lives) of many on "this" earth by propagating belief in god/s,like does any old selfish gambler who lives only with cares for "himself" and his own blissful thoughts of hopefully winning some silly future jackpot.The gambler never ever considers the overall costs.

I personally would far rather spend forever in any hell there be in any afterlife,than ever be in any place where i need to "again" spend another life with many judgmentle thoughtless selfish selfrighteous uncaring selfcentered indoctrinated zombies.

Just the thought of another sentence of spending another life with these people,even cures me of even any thought of also buying into a lottery ticket of this supposed "heaven" prize.

Just imagine what it might be like,to be again with folks all standing around singing how wonderful "they" were down here.Feeling so wonderfully pleased with themselves,because some others went to hell.

And no Kevin please please, dont throw a bleat back at me about faith charity etc.

Thats only really a argument for proving faithful folk only actually "buy" their way into heaven when doing charity,because it suggesting without the faith these folks likely would simply stop bothering with any charity.Proving what a face value type farcical deal, the bullshit idea of only ever careing through faith belief really is.

Charity done without faith belief, is the very best test available for real honesty of charity and caring!.

KH.."There is absolutely nothing positive about atheism. There is no hope, no "progress", no future"

How much "hope" and "positive" "progress" should we realistically be expecting,when we first need to try our best to reprogram so many mindless faithful zombies?.

"...what we do flows from what we believe and that we cannot believe differently. So we do what we think is best at the moment, all of us, all of the time. In your life can you name me one wrong deed that you've done that you did not think it was the best deed to do under the circumstances at that time (even if on hindsight we all wish would wouldn't have done some things)? Of course you can't. The reason is because we only do that which we think is to our benefit at any given time. We may be short-sighted, but we're not evil."

Hi John

You seem to be endorsing a Socratic/early-Platonic view of morality here, i.e. one in which no one knowingly does evil, and thus in which immorality can be ultimately be reduced to ignorance. Is this accurate?

Deluded people also attack the character of the one telling them that they are deluded as TD did, which again, is not an argument against anything I have said at all.

No loftus, myself and others have dealt with more than enough of your hilariously ridiculous arguments at my blog. You on the other hand, ignore those arguments in favor of those character attacks you just whined about.

This is why I like Buddhism, because all of this eternal meaning/nonmeaning discussion is rejected. This life has meaning simply because it is. Does one need to look further? In fact, when one does look further one is not really dealing with things one can know. I gain meaning in my life because I understand how I am infinitely connected with all things, and that the life I live is finite. This is making me think much harder about how I live and how I treat others and my world. Ever since I left Christianity I've had immense hope because now I know that I'm in control of my life.

Also I can stop assuming why it is that people do certain things or believe certain things, as opposed to resting on the idea that they're evil or god haters etc. This is a great relief.

Eric, no, in a post Freudian world we cannot attribute immorality to ignorance. Because of our subconscious mind we are all driven by unconscious reasons. But on the surface, that is, the conscious level, the decision-making level, what I said is true. It's kinda like the fact that Newtonian physics is true on one level but false when we factor speed of travel into the equation, like Einstein showed us.

BTW Eric, have you looked at Joshua's blog recently where he said Dr. Craig is a snake oil salesman, dismisses your comment about me and dismisses my book as Josh McDowell's evidence books? Is he one arrogant son of a bitch or what?

If you could explain how something came from nothing and how life came from non-life, I may consider atheism. Oh, and also explain how you could define anything as good or bad without being subjective and begging the question.

Finally, demonstrate how logic could have evolved without being arbitrary and subjective. Essentially provide an atheist epistemology.

Let me know what you've got on that if you have the time. Otherwise, your post is just a giant yawn for me and lacks substance.

It shouldn’t be difficult to prove your position. Tell me how life came from non-life; how rationality came from non-rationality; and how morals could have evolved and have any meaning. Do this without begging the question.

If atheism is airtight, this should be simple for you. Your name-calling may sway some who don’t realize that calling someone a “bully” isn’t actually an argument.

Again, not surprising. I’m still yawning though. And still waiting for anyone to scratch the surface.

Thomas, just a forewarning. Since your profile is not made public your comments may not be published in the future.

In any case, what you fail to realize is that the options are not just between your specific type of Christianity (which have many varied versions) and metaphysical naturalism (which is only one kind of atheism).

No. There are a myriad number of religious and non-religious views.

To me agnosticism and deism are much more worthy contenders than your specific type of Christianity (whatever that is). While I'm an agnostic atheist myself, I would be happy in simply saying I don't know what to affirm. You, however, claim to know. You are probably certain that what you believe is true. I, however, think a healthy measure of skepticism and doubt are called for given the paucity of evidence available to us.

I'm not. I am an agnostic. I'd even venture to say that I am a Christian Agnostic. I don't know if there is a god but I kind of like the mythical accounts of Christ in the bible and don't subscribe to a Pauline theology to enjoy those myths.

I simply believe, based on my experience, that the type of Christianity John debunks is worth debunking because it is delusional.

I am not a cosmologist, nor a biologist, nor an ethicist so, providing definitive answers to your questions would be pretentious on my part.

I don't think any of those mysteries leads one to conclude that Evangelical Christianity is true.

I'd take those questions to a cosmologist, biologist, or ethicist and could care less if they are Christian. In fact, if they did espouse Evangelical Christianity then I would doubt the answers they provided were based on evidence. I'd have to conclude they are rooted in ancient and fear-based superstition.

Now, what is the positive worldview you profess which allows us definitive answers to the questions you pose? Are you an Evangelical Christian? If so, why has it taken so long for you to express this as your position?

Thanks.

Additionally, I still consider you a bully whose entire polemic is based on defensive and reactionary thinking. Yawn indeed.

Surely you must have good reasons to believe that life came from non-life and that logic evolved and that morality can be defined in any substantive way without begging the question.

You and John do have reasons, right?

I don't know the answers to your questions, but I do know that "godditit" is is a cop out. There was a time when people thought gods caused things like thunder, moving the sun across the sky, etc. In fact, the more that is learned about the world the more gods a pushed into the ever shrinking gaps.

I'm going to agree with John and say that Christianity's metaphysics do more to confuse the reality of things than to actually make anything clearer. I can't even count the number of philosophical issues I've encountered in my Christian life that have absolutely no rational conclusion and are often times completely paradoxical. Does God predestine or is there free will, for instance? Is god loving or a psychotic spiteful bastard? How many times does the Holy Spirit have to disagree in order for us to just poo-poo the whole idea? These and many other 'metaphysics' explain NOTHING in the real world and I'd say the only thing helpful we get from Christianity is an explanation of how the universe came to be, and even that explanation is pretty poor.

Thomas said... "If you could explain how something came from nothing and how life came from non-life, I may consider atheism. Oh, and also explain how you could define anything as good or bad without being subjective and begging the question.

Finally, demonstrate how logic could have evolved without being arbitrary and subjective. Essentially provide an atheist epistemology."

Thomas what makes you think, to be atheist you (have) to believe life came from nothing?.There is many posibilities.

Atheist just see no evidence of god/s,and think its stupid to simply just (guess) there must be gods.And bloody dangerous too,which its often proved to be.

Not many these days need to beg the question, of if its ok to kill someone for absolutely no good reason at all.Its one moral pretty close to being thought objective,a very large majority of people agree these days on not killing folks for no good reason at all.

Anyway god morals prove they only ever evolved too,we can see it in bibles etc when there was once a time that supposedly the gods told us stoning people to death was a real good thing.But the moral evolved!,and we no longer agree with stoning people to death.It proves most likely it was never even a objective moral from any god in the first place.

The human race working together as a group helps our logic evolve and grow.Its part of the reason we learn many new things,unless you really believe some god gives folks the plans of how to build space rockets and things.

This idea many faith believers seem to get stuck in their heads,that somehow atheism equals everyone just doing their own thing .Idea of atheists being into nihilism and anarchy etc,is just propaganda and bullshit and deceit of folks of faith that are even prepared to be complete liars for their jesus if thats what it takes to try to protect their belief in gods .